Re: Porting to typed C++ parser (was: Dynamic token kinds)

[Hans Åberg]

> On 19 Dec 2018, at 15:38, Frank Heckenbach <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> Hans Åberg wrote:
> 
>>> By default, I keep recipients (list) and CCs (Akim) as is.
>> 
>> With a reply to all, it would come out right.
> 
> Depends on what you consider right. It's a mailing list. Those who
> write here are expected to read via the list (subscription or
> archive; I know you do) or take their own measures (Reply-To or CC).
> With "reply to all", I get all of your mails twice, doesn't seem
> right to me (though only slightly annoying these days, as opposed to
> 20 years ago when every KB of internet data cost a fortune ;).

That can be changed in you list subscription. The emails I get have both your 
address and bug-bison, so you perhaps already get two copies anyway on the 
reply-alls.

>>> If you
>>> want a private copy, set a Reply-To.
>> 
>> Those are generally bad.
> 
> I don't agree. Some years ago there was a somewhat famous rant
> against them, but it was full of BS and misunderstandings.
> 
> Or you can set a CC to yourself if you wish.

I simply did not know why you had this funny cc'ing to some, but not to me. 
Don't worry about it.

>> I might not notice your posts, so do as you wish.
> 
> Honestly, you *not* noticing my posts is one of my smallest worries. ;)

Well, I apologize for replying to your email, but it seemed directed to be.

>>>>>> Actually, I pass the semantic value through a class object to
>>>>>> which the lexer function belongs, so the extra arguments are not
>>>>>> needed. So I must think more about this.
>>>>> 
>>>>> FWIW, my lexer function is also part of a "driver" object, but I
>>>>> don't think that's relevant here. Maybe you think of the "%param"
>>>>> arguments, but it's not about those.
>>>> 
>>>> No, I use the Flex C++ parser right now, which for some reason
>>>> requires an empty argument, so this works without patching the
>>>> header, that is, until they decided to bomb it in 2.6 and later.
>>> 
>>> I don't use flex anymore, and never used flex C++, so I don't know
>>> about that. But again, that's unrelated to the current proposal.
>> 
>> It was in response to your comment.
> 
> Which was in response to your comment about some mysterious "extra
> arguments".

I do not use %param, don't worry about the other.

>> There might be a problem with the Bison variant if one in the
>> lexer returns an object of another type that the token type, and
>> expect a conversion.
> 
> There is no conversion, and in most cases, there couldn't be any
> when types are too different; but even if types are similar enough
> that a safe automatic conversion would be possible, say char to int,
> I know of no variant or union that would do so. That's not specific
> to Bison's variant.
> 
> So such a mismatch is an error. The only difference is how this
> error is handled. std::variant throws an exception on usage; Bison's
> variant so far basically makes it UB (which is a valid answer; many
> things in C++ are UB), the current proposal would report an error on
> construction already, so slightly better than std::variant (in case
> the mismatching value is silently discarded).

Two lookup table variations: The values are stored, with the token value, as a 
pointer to a base class, or as variants.